Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.

Armed with a computer model in 1935, one could probably have written the exact same story on California drought as appears today in the Washington Post some 80 years ago, prompted by the very similar outlier temperatures of 1934 and 2014.

Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses, have given rise to a growing libertarian movement in our country – with a greater focus on individual liberty and less government power. David Boaz’s newly released The Libertarian Mind is a comprehensive guide to the history, philosophy, and growth of the libertarian movement, with incisive analyses of today’s most pressing issues and policies.

Search form

Tag: academia

Cato believes that young lawyers’ writing about ideas, theory, and policy doesn’t need to end with law-school graduation—and shouldn’t be the sole province of law professors. We also know how hard it is to produce high-quality scholarship outside of an academic setting, especially for first-time authors. Accordingly, starting next month Cato will be hosting a Legal Academic Writing Workshop to encourage the efforts of up-and-coming legal scholars (whether you intend to become a professor or not).

The LAW Workshop is a colloquium that brings together young legal professionals interested in scholarly writing. Every other week at Cato’s offices, the group will meet to discuss and offer feedback on one participant’s pre-circulated draft article or working paper. This isn’t a “legal research and writing” course or a lecture series featuring Cato’s fellows and scholars—I myself will be able to attend sporadically at best—but a way for recent graduates to stay connected to the scholarly community and their peers, while getting valuable feedback and input on their scholarly projects.

Because of limited space, attendance is by application and invitation only. If you’re interested in joining, please email Cato legal associate Gabriel Latner at glatner [at] cato [dot] org, attaching your resume and a short description of an article you’re writing (or would like to write).

We’re excited about this opportunity to help develop the next generation of legal scholars!

There is a reason “ivory tower” has a negative connotation, evoking images of effete snobs walled away in ivory opulence as they look down on the commoners and demand outsized respect. The image, unfortunately, is occasionally accurate for individual academics, and almost always so for the whole of academia, which is funded by massive subsidies taken from taxpayers, but walled off by claims that no price can or should ever be affixed to the “public good” it produces. Add to this its professorial residents often demanding limitless freedom – and job security – to say whatever they want about such evil pursuits as “big business” that generate the tax dollars that keep the tower cushy and its jobs secure, and disdain for the tower is well deserved.

The distasteful side of academia is on display in an article by journalism professor Robert Jensen, in which he responds to a recent Texas Public Policy Foundation conference that he attended, and in which I participated. And by “I,” I mean Neal McCluskey, a “reactionary” ideologue suffering from “libertarian fantasies,” to use the good professor’s insightful and even-handed characterization of me and my positions. He also throws in a guaranteed lefty applause line about the free market causing the recent economic downturn – who the heck are Fannie and Freddie? – and in so doing displays why many people see academia not as a haven for objective truth-seekers, but a castle for axe-grinders who want to place themselves high above the people and institutions they just don’t like.

This would perhaps be palatable if our betters sought to fund their lofty positions through the voluntary contributions of others. But many don’t. No, they insist that they should be able to do and say whatever they want using money extracted from taxpayers – including taxpayers they plan to rhetorically assault – whether those taxpayers like it or not. In an equal society – which so many of them, including Prof. Jensen, say they’re defending – they insist that they should be most equal of all.

Perhaps the most ironic part of Prof. Jensen’s commentary is that in his apparent haste to ignore my message and demean the messenger, he missed that he and I are likely in agreement about whether No Child Left Behind-esque rules and regulations should be applied to colleges and universities. It seems he just infers that my arguing that ending subsidies is the key to meaningful accountability means that I support such efforts as those being pitched by TPPF to impose transparency and accountability on public Texas colleges. I offered no such support, and though I would like to see TPPFs proposals tried in some schools, I would never demand that they be imposed by government. Unfortunately, it appears Prof. Jensen just didn’t do due journalistic diligence by researching what I’ve written on these topics before branding me a bad guy, including taking in my opposition to standardized testing proposals that emanated from the Spellings Commission, or, for that matter, reading my writings on NCLB.

In the end, all I want is for professors to be on the same starting level as the average person: having to get the voluntary support of others to do their vaunted work. But too many academics, like Prof. Jensen, don’t seem to care for that deal. They want to take your money whether you like it or not, lest they lose the ability to tell you how terrible you are.